About 2 years ago, there was a letter given to the body of elders regarding having a spokesman for the media or authorities, in the event somebody began questioning us. The gist of the letter is that the Society didn't want everyone shooting their mouths or opinions off. They wanted one go to guy. (It helps in the control department.)
How more vague can the society get at the assemblies?
by be wise 26 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Euphemism
Now when you hear a comment from the stage, you will know it's drivel directly from Brooklyn, and not some DO's personal diatribe.
I thought about that when I was a loyal dub. On the one hand, I hated the pompous, empty manuscripts, and I hated the fact that they stifled any creativity or originality. OTOH, I knew about '75, and I'd seen plenty of diatribing DOs myself. It's not a pretty sight.
I think there are two root causes to the paradox.
1. The authority of COs and DOs. If these men were not placed in a position of episcopal authority over the witnesses, then it would be relatively harmless to give them free rein. Instead, because so many Witnesses take their word as gospel, any piece of hogwash they spout can have severe consequences.
2. The quality of COs and DOs. These men have mostly been chosen for their faithfulness in the preaching work, rather than any speaking, teaching, or shepherding ability. (That's even more so with DOs than COs, because most COs haven't been around as long. DOs, more often, date back to the days of Knorr, when hours and moral purity were all that mattered.) Many of them don't seem to know how to work up an encouraging, interesting scriptural talk if not given detailed crib notes by Brooklyn. The DOs used to have free rein for the final half hour of the Circuit Assemblies, but that got changed, because a lot of DOs were using the time to vent about people going to the bathroom and talking during the session, and things like that.
So if the Society actually appointed decent speakers, and left the flock some leeway to apply critical thinking to what they heard from the platform, they could allow for more originality and creativity without having to worry about the consequences. But of course, that wouldn't be the Borg we all know and love...
-
Room 215
I stopped in for about an hour on Sunday morning at the JW assembly in Philly (actually the drama, once one discounts the karaoke over-the-top gesticulating, was not bad; mainly beause it adhered -- almost word-for-word-- closely to Acts and ths post-Pentecost events down to Stephen's trial and stoning; it was refreshing, not to mention extremely rare, to witness a JW session with content so Christ-centered and devoid of even one reference to the ``Faithful and Discreet Slave" or ``the organization.")
Sure enough, in the front row, there set a group of senior staffers before a small table set up with two telpehones and monitoring each talk, with pens ready. ostensibly to annotate any deviation from the company line.
-
ozziepost
Sure enough, in the front row, there set a group of senior staffers before a small table set up with two telpehones and monitoring each talk, with pens ready. ostensibly to annotate any deviation from the company line.
I wonder how many realise that this is the standard practise at District Conventions. I'm surprised they were so visible, Roomie. Did they leave room for the full set of outlines!!
Cheers, Ozzie
-
Room 215
Oz, I would say that they were inconspicuous to anyone unaware of the practice and not actually looking for them but certainly not hidden from view. I was too far from them to see what they had, but it appeared to be a collection of papers and in one case a loose-leaf notebook; actually I was more intrigued by the presence of two telephones (!?) on the small table.
-
observador
It was probably accelerated after the pre 75 fiasco, where brothers got up on stage, and starting adding their own comments to outlines. Comments like ' Brothers in the overall scheme of things, Armageddon is just minutes away'
I know you didn't mean this, but the above sounds a little defensive of the WT.
But keep in mind that those "brothers" were basically COs and DOs, and even when they were not, they were long time elders in the congregations. All of them were representatives of the WT. And where did they get the idea of 1975 from?
In other words, if the WT doesn't want to create any excitement about something it should not do it itself. Those "brothers" did what they did with the approval of the WT, imho.
Observador.
-
ozziepost
Roomie,
On the occasions when I've done this "privilege", I've usually been 'outasite' in my admin office. I can recall doing it once in the 'audience' area seated next to Mrs Ozzie. I think she was as interested in 'deviations' as I was! Oh, the power that having a set of outlines wields!!
Of course, being in an office I did have phone communication admin to chairman, but having two phones out visible??? Wow, that's really something. I wonder if they've thought of that elsewhere?
Cheers, Ozzie